Mark Boushey supports a bill that expands his right to defend his property, but is unlikely to take advantage of it.
Owners of several Centretown convenience stores say they won’t be tying up shoplifters as Toronto shopkeeper David Chen did, controversially, a few years ago, but they would still welcome a proposed federal law that would make it easier to place thieves under citizen’s arrest.
Meanwhile, lawyers and security industry representatives disagree over whether the bill will actually help bust criminals or just lead to an increase in heavy-handed conduct by security guards.
Bill C-26, the Citizen’s Arrest and Self Defense Act, which is headed for third reading in the House of Commons, would allow property owners and those who work for them to place suspected criminals under citizen’s arrest “within a reasonable time after the offence is committed.” Currently, proprietors can only arrest suspects if they catch them red-handed.
The bill was inspired by Chen, who tied up a shoplifter outside his Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto in 2009.
In a case that drew loud protests that the justice system was “persecuting the victim,” Chen was charged with assault and forcible confinement for his actions. Authorities said he had no right to make the arrest because more than an hour had passed since the theft had occurred.
Chen was ultimately found not guilty.
“I do think victims’ rights have been trampled on and it’s time for the pendulum to swing back to the middle,” says Chris Wilcox, vice-president and general manager of the Ottawa-based Quickie chain.
Quickie is a member of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, which supported Bill C-26 before the House justice committee.
But Wilcox says he would never risk the safety of his staff by asking them to confront thieves.
Other shop owners agree, saying that the bill is more a symbolic recognition of their right to defend their property than something they’d actually take advantage of.
“It’s too dangerous,” says Mark Boushey, of Boushey’s Fruit Market on Elgin Street.
“You’re not going to risk yourself for a five-dollar piece of cheese.”
Others support the legislation.
“We are in favour legally to have the right, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to do it,” adds Ali Karimi, owner of Ottawa’s four-store Zesty chain, which has locations on Rideau, Elgin and Bank streets.
One Centretown criminal lawyer says cases such as Chen’s are extremely rare.
“What we see a lot more in our courts are examples of private security being somewhat heavy-handed in how they interact with members of the public,” says Leo Russomanno, of the Lisgar Street firm Webber Schroeder Goldstein Abergel.
He told the justice committee recently that Bill C-26 is problematic because it would give more power to private security guards like the ones that patrol shopping malls – and he says those private guards lack the training and accountability of police.
But Ross McLeod, president of the Association of Professional Security Agencies, counters that it’s easier to hold private security agents accountable than police.
Complainants can go to the Ministry of Corrections, which can revoke licences and fine or charge delinquent agents, says McLeod. Victims of out-of-line security guards can also sue the security company.
“Getting any kind of action through the complaints process to the police is notoriously unproductive in all that I’ve read about it,” McLeod adds
Russomanno says current laws successfully protected Chen from conviction so there’s no need to change them.
But McLeod says there are still good reasons to give people more time to make citizen’s arrests: a suspect might escape but turn up later, a more serious incident might temporarily divert security, or an agent might need to call for help if a suspect looks too big for one person to arrest.
“Bill C-26 is not breaking new ground,” he says, “(it’s) just catching up with reality.”